Access to Justice System and Stereotypes

Unfortunately, the promise of “justice for all” continues to be elusive for people with disabilities, especially those with developmental disabilities. Civil rights abuses experienced by people with disabilities are often egregious, ranging from pervasive discrimination to neglect and instances of horrific physical, sexual and emotional abuse that may go unprosecuted and unpunished.

Recognizing that people with disabilities are often denied access to the justice system, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) and The Arc issued a joint position statement that reads, in part:

People with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities who are victims, suspects or witnesses, like other residents of the United States, have the right to justice and fair treatment in all areas of the criminal justice system, including reasonable accommodations as necessary.[1]

The justice system sometimes reflects outdated stereotypes that impact access to justice for people with developmental disabilities. For example, people working in the law enforcement and justice systems can assume that people with developmental disabilities are incompetent and, therefore, unable to participate in the justice system in a meaningful way. Some might assume that all people with developmental disabilities have neither the physical or intellectual capacity to withstand the rigors of a trial.

Victims with disabilities are often treated as children who are incapable of assisting in their case and must be protected from reality. While it is true that attorneys and other representatives of the legal system may encounter unique challenges when working with individuals with developmental disabilities, these challenges can be addressed without jeopardizing an individual’s rights.

In 1980, Bobby James Moore and two other individuals robbed a grocery store. Moore fatally shot a store clerk, was convicted, and sentenced to death. A federal habeas court vacated the sentence and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Moor was then resentenced to death in 2001 and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) affirmed.

The United States Supreme Court vacated the CCA’s judgment. Justice Ginsburg, for the Court, stated –

“…the several factors Briseno set out as indicators of intellectual disability are an invention of the CCA untied to any acknowledged source. Not aligned with the medical community’s information, [they] creat[e] an unacceptable risk that persons with intellectual disability will be executed…. Accordingly. they may not be used.”

The 25th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act brought attention to disability rights issues, the progress that has been made and recognition of the work that remains for the spirit and intent to the ADA to be realized. The barriers that impede access to justice for people with disabilities, the gaps that must be bridged, and the personal experiences of individuals with disabilities who have been involved in the justice system are presented in this series of videos:

Disclaimer: The language used to describe people with developmental disabilities has changed over time. Many terms and language that are now considered disrespectful and offensive were once considered acceptable.
As people with developmental disabilities have begun to advocate for the use of “people first” language and more respectful words to describe people with disabilities in spoken and written language, terms such as “retarded,” “handicapped,” “trainable,” and “educable” have been replaced in many laws documents.
However, the remnants of what is now considered unacceptable language and terms may still be found in references to official governmental bodies (i.e. President’s Panel on Mental Retardation), organizations that were founded during these earlier years, federal laws, reports (i.e. Community Residences for Mentally Retarded Persons), case law, and quotations. These terms are used from time to time in this website, for historical accuracy.